T. Nandakumar Singh, J.

1. Heard Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Tamphamani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 07.11.2012 passed in Cont. Case(C) No. 135 of 2010 wherein and whereunder, the learned single Judge had made some directions in the said contempt case.

The operative portion of the judgment and order dated 07.11.2012 read as follows:-

The contemnor cannot take a vague plea after lapse of almost 5(five) years they are intending to go for an appeal so they will not comply the Courts order. From the order dated 6.9.2011, the contemnor has submitted that the matter is under consideration for immediate compliance and now after almost lapse of 1 (one) year they are coming with a different stand just to bye pass the Courts order dated 28.2.2007 which is nothing but a kind of playing tactice of the contemnor which is highly disgusting and disgraceful. And this court warns the respondent/contemnor specially respondent No. 5 to be cautious not to play with the Court order and directs to comply the Courts order dated 28.2.2007 passed in W.P(C) No. 696/2006 within 2(two) weeks, failing which this Court will be bound to impose heavy penalty.

2. We have perused the impugned order:-

It appears that the contempt case is not finally disposed of and the same is still pending. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is crystal clear that the learned single Judge had not imposed any penalty or punishment to the alleged contemnor, i.e. the present appellant. Against which type of order the appeal lies under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 had already been decided by this Court (Division Bench) in a number of cases, one of which is the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur. Imphal & another v. Shri Aribam Kanhai Sharma & other (Division Bench) reported in (1994) 1 GLR 55. Para Nos. 2, 3 and 7 the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur, Imphal & another (supra) read as follows:-

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are thus. Thus respondents made an application (Civil Original Contempt Petition No. 91/92) for initiating contempt proceeding against the appellants alleging that the appellants had willfully disobeyed the order made on 21.02.92 by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Rule No. 608 of 1990, that is to say, the respondents moved the Court and drew its attention to the contempt alleged to have been committed by the appellants. Learned single Judge had held that there was no willful disobedience of the order of this Court and closed the case. However, the learned single Judge directed the appellants to carry out the direction of the Court as is stated in the order.

3. Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act on the ground that no punishment was imposed on the appellants by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt.

7. The decision of the Supreme Court makes it clear that, if the Court does not punish the alleged contemner, no appeal shall lie under section 19(1) of the Act from any decision or order made in contempt proceeding. As already stated, learned single Judge did not punish the contemners. Therefore, no appeal shall lie from the impugned order.

Further in a catena of cases, the Apex Court observed that no appeal lies against the order of the learned single Judge making some observations and directions in the contempt proceedings. The learned single Judge did not finally dispose of the said contempt case. It is the decision of this High Court in a number of cases that appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 lies against the judgment and order punishing the condemner in a contempt proceeding.

3. In the pre